Monday, October 8, 2012

On Wednesday evening, Americans citizens were ceremoniously
presented the preferred platitudes of this election season. In the first presidential
debate, major party candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama predictably talked
past one another, evaded the monitor’s questions and stuck to tired campaign
catchphrases in search of the ever-elusive “zinger.” The debate capped off a
long summer of honest, productive discussion on the issues that matter most to
America’s future – issues like Mitt Romney’s tax returns, London’s Olympic
preparedness, the pleasure of firing people, why airplane windows don’t open, the
morality of various canine transportation methods, and whether or not you
really “built that.”

Joking aside, American politics have become exactly that: a
joke. Informed and intelligent people should be insulted by the complete
absence of relevant, substantive discourse in modern political campaigns. How can
it be that with so many urgent, pressing decisions facing our nation, none of
them are being seriously discussed by those competing for our votes? All
throughout the country there is a growing sense that something is seriously
wrong with our democracy. This problem runs deeper than a sour economy, or the debt
crisis, or unpopular wars abroad; although these are daunting challenges,
America has survived worse. What sets our current problems apart is the
pervasive lack of public confidence that our elected officials will be able to
solve them. And if the past decade is any indication, why should people believe
differently?

Each election seasons brings a fresh batch of meaningless,
infantile banter about irrelevant distractor issues. Each campaign speech seems
designed only to rile up a target audience instead of addressing the nation’s actual
problems. Each party blames the other for all the nation’s woes, and yet no
matter which party wins things only ever seem to get worse. Time and time
again, bold promises become bald-faced lies, and Americans lose faith in their
leaders’ competence and motives. With so much misplaced trust in prior
politicians, it’s no wonder that so many Americans are so utterly uninspired by
either candidate this year.

What they’ve been told over and over again is that they
should choose one of them anyway. The importance of that “choice” is constantly
stressed by the media and by politicians from both major parties. “The outcome
of this election”, they tell us, “is too important to waste your vote on anyone
else.” To magnify the importance of that outcome, the parties exaggerate
relatively small policy differences with highly polarizing rhetoric. They do
this because their legitimacy depends on our belief that we have a meaningful
choice in how we’re governed. To fuel that belief, the parties must preserve
the perception that they are perpetually at odds with one another. Barack Obama
and Mitt Romney want to convince you that they are two very different men, who
will actually take America in two very different directions. They want to
convince you that it really matters who wins.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The two-party system
has proven itself incapable of presenting Americans with distinct, adaptive,
varied choices that respond to their evolving demands in a timely manner. Instead,
it creates duopoly on the services government offers, which is used to prevent any
alternate choice from serious consideration. As in most elections, the 2012
presidential candidates support a very similar set of policies, but shroud
those policies in different rhetoric so as to make them sound appealing to
different people.

Don’t believe it? Try answering the following questions.
Which candidate advocates foreign military interventions to spread democracy
abroad? Which candidate wants to keep the troops in Afghanistan? Which wants to
continue foreign aid? Which advocates aggressive sanctions on Iran and hinted
they might initiate military actions against it? Which wants to continue the
oil embargo on Cuba? Which has flip-flopped repeatedly on social issues, and on
gay rights specifically due to a supposed change in heart? Which has similarly flip-flopped
on whether they support an individual mandate in healthcare? Which supports the
NDAA, the Patriot Act, and the TSA? Which wants to keep marijuana illegal at
the federal level and escalate federal enforcement of the drug war? Which
supported the bank bailouts, and called for stimulus spending to jumpstart the
economy? Which has proposed a long-term fiscal plan that comes nowhere near
balancing the budget at any point in time? Which advocates miniscule spending
cuts to portray themselves as frugal anyway, while stating that they will not
cut Medicare or Medicaid? Which favors continued farm, ethanol and corn
subsidies? Which supports crony-capitalism arrangements in which the government
assists certain industries or companies through targeted tax breaks, regulatory
exemptions or direct loans? Which supports tariffs and labor protectionism?

By now you’ve probably guessed that the answer to all of
these questions is both of them. On these issues and many others, Americans
don’t get a real choice, because no matter who they choose the policy outcome
will be the same. This overlap is almost never brought up in modern political
discourse, and stands no chance to change if people keep enabling the two-party
system, actively or tacitly. There are of course some issues on which the
candidates disagree. But the number, size and importance of that disagreement
pales in comparison to the enormous area of consensus between the two. The vast
majority of policies would be indistinguishable under either administration,
because on the vast majority of issues, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney want to
keep things exactly as they are. To get the country back on track we need a
bold change of direction, but neither party is willing to provide it.

This problem is not unique to 2012. In almost every election,
team red and team blue advocate the same core package in a slightly different
format. They mask the areas on which they concur to hide the fact that the
people have no real choice on those areas. They present a false choice between
two inconsequentially different people every four years, hoping to win but
caring much more about preserving the myth that only one of these two parties
can win. If they can convince you that your vote is important, and then
convince you that voting for anyone with any substantially new ideas is
throwing away that vote, the myth lives on and their long-term stranglehold on
power is solidified. It's a myth we need to break down if any true progress is
to be made.

The historically flawed notion that third party candidates
cannot win has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the pervasiveness of this
belief is the only thing that makes it true. Certainly, the status quo is not
preserved because it is popular with the voters. On many of the above issues,
American opinions are in stark contrast to those advocated by their
representatives. Almost 80% of Americans want to reduce foreign aid or end it
entirely. Increasing majorities want to legalize marijuana and end the war on
drugs. But these ideas are simply off the table until the major parties are
given an incentive to put it on the table. Congress’ approval rating slipped
into single digits in August, and has been below 20% for years. And yet in
2010, the House of Representatives had an 87% retention rate - the lowest that rate had been in 40 years!
The Senate had an 84% retention rate, and it would be highly surprising to see
these rates dip much lower in 2012. How can it be that 90% of Americans
disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and yet over 80% of Congress is
perpetually reelected? Gerrymandering is one reason – the tragic but deeply
embedded mindset that voting for anyone other than a Democrat or a Republican
is “wasting your vote” is another.

If everyone who has this mindset discarded it
simultaneously, the nation would be ripe for a realigning election. A recent
Pew Research Center poll showed that self-titled independents make up 38% of
the electorate, outnumbering both Democrats (32%) and Republicans (24%). All
across the political spectrum, there is broad consensus that America needs a
drastic change of direction. And all across that spectrum, it is widely,
silently agreed is that neither of these two candidates will actually provide
that change. Americans are beginning to recognize that contrary to mainstream
rhetoric, the problem isn’t that one side is right while the other side is
wrong. It’s more accurate to say they’re both wrong. It has become abundantly
clear that whatever ails our nation cannot be fixed by either of these two
parties as they currently operate. Although we claim to live in a democracy in
which the people decide how they’re governed, there is a significant discord
between what the voters want and what their government gives them. This is the deep-rooted
problem that citizens have detected with American democracy.

How can we solve it? People who recognize this problem can
react in three different ways. The first is to vote for whichever major
candidate they feel is the least bad, and hope change will eventually come.
Although this is tempting in the short term, over the long term it only endorses,
incentivizes and encourages the behavior of whoever you voted for. The second typical
response to this realization is apathy. If we can’t change the outcome, why
should we care? Why go through the hassle of voting and participating in the
political process if the decisions we make don’t matter? Many Americans are so
discouraged and frustrated by the lack of progress that they’ve become
indifferent to political affairs entirely. Although this withdrawal is
tempting, it is also the worst possible reaction if we are to make a
difference, because if you don’t vote, politicians ignore your opinion
entirely. Those who care govern those who don’t. If you send the signal that
you don’t care, then politicians won’t care about what you think, and they
won’t court your support when shaping future party platforms. Too many people
have been so apathetic about their lack of choice in politics for so long that
they are simply ignored by the major parties.

Voters, however, cannot be ignored by any politician looking
to stay in office (read: all of them). Large numbers of third-party voters
would force both Democrats and Republicans to adjust their strategies
accordingly. In the best case scenario, this would enable the rise of a third
party (or several) in future elections. These new options would enhance choice
and increase the diversity of viewpoints represented in our government. But even
in the worst case scenario, voting third party this would provide incentive for
the two major parties to adopt some of the most popular tenets of those third
party campaigns into their own plans, enacting real change and breaking up
entrenched traditional viewpoints in the process. Either way it would inject
some much needed creativity into our stalemated political world by providing
fresh perspectives on old problems. And even if that shake up has minimal effect,
you get the satisfaction of actively participating in our democratic process without
having to hold your nose in disgust at the person you vote for.

No third party candidate will win the 2012 election, but
significant progress can be made even short of that benchmark. For instance,
what if the portion of Americans who voted third party exceeded the margin of
victory between the other two? Mathematically, this would mean third-party
input potentially changed the outcome of the election. It would send a powerful
message to the losing party: if they want to win, they need our support, and if
they want our support, they need to actually address our concerns. By contrast,
voting for Romney or Obama even though you don’t really like them sends
politicians the message that they can do whatever they please without
jeopardizing your support, so long as they abuse you less than the other guy.

If for no other reason, a vote for a third party candidate
is valuable in that it helps break down the myth that nobody else can win. It
rejects the false choice presented to us by the two-party stranglehold that
gives us two very similar status-quo candidates each year. It sends a message to
those parties that if they want to keep our business, they have to actually be
responsive to our concerns. Just as the prospect of customers leaving for
elsewhere incenses private businesses to make better products at a cheaper
price, taking our political business elsewhere realigns politicians with the
incentive that should be guiding them: keeping their constituents happy.

If you’re a Hopkins undergraduate reading this article,
chances are that this election will be the first in which you’re old enough to
vote. In making your decision, remember that it will not be your last. If
either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is everything you’ve ever dreamed of in a
candidate, then by all means vote for them. If not, then I urge you to look at
the bigger picture this November. Ask yourself if you’re really satisfied with
the amount of choice you have in how you’ll be governed these next four years.
Set aside any lukewarm preference for the side you dislike least, and
objectively ask yourself whether either of these two candidates truly deserve
your vote. If the answer is no, don’t give it to them. Instead, vote for real
change by sending a message that you expect a real choice in the future.

Halfheartedly picking the lesser of two evils will do little
to truly change our nation’s course. Americans deserve a better choice than
that, and there are better options out there. Although it’s too late to
realistically elect those options this year, if we want them to improve in the
future we must communicate that desire now. If we value the ability to make
meaningful democratic choices tomorrow, we must reject the false choices
presented to us today. If we want real change, we must make our leaders
confront new ideas instead of dodging them. If we want our voices to be heard
on important issues, we must start voting for whoever truly engages with those
issues. If we want our politicians to be responsive to our concerns, we must
make them compete for our business by demonstrating a willingness to take our
business elsewhere. In other words, we must start voting for third party
candidates.

"Many Americans are so discouraged and frustrated by the lack of progress that they’ve become indifferent to political affairs entirely. Although this withdrawal is tempting, it is also the worst possible reaction if we are to make a difference, because if you don’t vote, politicians ignore your opinion entirely. Those who care govern those who don’t. If you send the signal that you don’t care, then politicians won’t care about what you think, and they won’t court your support when shaping future party platforms. Too many people have been so apathetic about their lack of choice in politics for so long that they are simply ignored by the major parties."

Interesting article. I would have voted for Gary Johnson, but I didn't appreciate his fiscal conservationism. Although, I loved his social policies. I think it is worth adding that it is very scary how powerful the executive branch has become. No longer are they merely a face of a specific party or a smooth talking face for the nation when we go into foreign relation; they are now capable of writing up specifics of laws to push through the legislative branch. Now, executive orders have grown to the ability to avoid declaring war even when invading countries and even avoid informing the American people.

On the other hand, the legislative branch is now holding committee meetings discussing the Benghazi crisis behind closed doors. Why are they not open to the public to see? It is a shame because like you said, many people have actually removed themselves from the democratic process only to ignore politics altogether or become frustrated with what their politicians are doing.

What is "fiscal conservationism"? Do you mean fiscal conservatism? If so, I'm sure we could have plenty of debates on that because I'm certainly conservative in the sense that I want government spending far less money than it does now.

And I totally agree that the growth of the executive is one of the biggest problems we face in shrinking government overall. It's scary what one man can do.

I don't either, I just don't see why those nets have to be funded by the government. Privatizing social security could work just fine, and privatizing medicare and medicaid would go a long way towards lowering healthcare costs. Those two programs alone make up 60% of federal expenditures. Private charity can take those tasks. The government, by contrast, is proving it can't be trusted with the responsibility. It's not fair to our generation saddled with the cost of paying the last generation's retirement when it simply won't be there for us. Furthermore, it's not fair that anyone be forced to contribute against their will; taxation is theft, and can only be justified when that theft is the lesser of two evils.

That said, Gary Johnson couldn't have privatized these programs on his own, and we're a long way from the day libertarians get a majority in Congress. I think you're safe from some of the more extreme libertarian views, and even from your perspective, I feel like changing it up a bit would do more good than bad.